Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 394 FSUPP 595 - Cousins v. Yaeger

Cousins v. Yaeger’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
6
states following
November 2008
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently November 2008

13 state decisions

1501975198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on McHugh Et Ux. v. Reading Co. · Thompson v. Reading Co. · Dugan v. Pennsylvania Railroad · Wilkinson v. Powell · Malischewski v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Artificial Conditions Highly Dangerous to Trespassing Children A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon tbe land if (a) the place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and (b) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and (e) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and (d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating . the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and (e) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “No case has been brought to our attention .wherein there has been imposed upon a possessor of land a duty to erect fencing or other protective devices or warnings to deter trespassing children from entering a third person’s property on which there exists a dangerous condition not created or maintained by the landowner and over which he has no control.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.